Speaking of conspiracy theories

[JonathanL]

Yeah - I thought they had done that but the current conversation led me to think they had already reversed that decision. Imagine, faulting google for not withdrawing over issues such as these when they actually already did that. I guess I just need to assume people are always distorting the truth or just misinformed and check every possible angle before I reply.

Sigh.


Jim

It seems like they might have plans to return:

Source: "Some Are Very Mad": Anger In Google Over Reported China Search Engine

BEIJING:
Google is crafting a search engine that would meet China's draconian censorship rules, a company employee told AFP on Thursday, in a move decried by human rights activists.

Google withdrew its search engine from China eight years ago due to censorship and hacking but it is now working on a project for the country codenamed "Dragonfly", the employee said on condition of anonymity.

The search project -- which works like a filter that sorts out certain topics -- can be tested within the company's internal networks, the source said.

© Copyright Original Source

https://www.ndtv.com/world-news/goog...source-1893856

ETA: Seems like Sparko was faster.

[oxmixmudd]

-------
Censorship is why [google pulled out of China]. Google effectively shut down its Chinese operations after it discovered a cyberattack from within the country that targeted it and dozens of other companies. And while investigating the attack, Google found that the Gmail accounts of a number of Chinese human-rights activists had been hacked.

Google had set up shop in China four years before the breach, offering a version of its services that conformed to the government’s oppressive censorship policies. At the time, Google officials said they’d decided that the most ethical option was to offer some services—albeit restricted by China’s censors—to the enormous Chinese market, rather than leave millions of Internet users with limited access to information.

But the 2010 attacks prompted the company to reverse course.

https://www.theatlantic.com/technolo...g-back/424482/

So no, they didn't pull out for moral reasons. They had already caved in that area. And now they are wanting back in and willing to cave even more.



sigh.

Sigh indeed.

1) Is it possible the brainstorming session was based on simply looking at possibilities and actually resulted in no covert action on their part - as they claim?

2) Does choosing not to covertly influence results in a free country base on chosen principles imply one MUST choose to not do business in a country where without such filtering one can't do business at all?

3) Does the fact google has in the past resisted efforts by governments to control censorship to the point of withdrawing not point to a commitment to those same principles?

4) Is it truly inconsistent with those same principles to, in a country with a government as oppressive in terms of information control as China, decide that providing a more expansive service than the government would provide is a better option that completely withdrawing from that country*?


Jim

*Perhaps so - I am disappointed in the fact they might return.

[Sparko]

Sigh indeed.

1) Is it possible the brainstorming session was based on simply looking at possibilities and actually resulted in no covert action on their part - as they claim?

2) Does choosing not to covertly influence results in a free country base on chosen principles imply one MUST choose to not do business in a country where without such filtering one can't do business at all?

3) Does the fact google has in the past resisted efforts by governments to control censorship to the point of withdrawing not point to a commitment to those same principles?

4) Is it truly inconsistent with those same principles to, in a country with a government as oppressive in terms of information control as China, decide that providing a more expansive service than the government would provide is a better option that completely withdrawing from that country?


Jim

So you are saying it is better to work with an evil entity because in doing so you could get some good done rather than just reject it altogether and let the evil be even worse?

[oxmixmudd]

So you are saying it is better to work with an evil entity because in doing so you could get some good done rather than just reject it altogether and let the evil be even worse?

I will do what you are avoiding, answer your question.

No, I am not making any sort of absolute statement here. This is the sort of thing you can't make an absolute rule for. There are levels of evil, and levels of good. As an extreme - no, you can't work with Hitler because you think you might get something good done. So it depends on if it's an entity or a person, what the level of evil is, and what level of good you think you might accomplish.

Now how about YOU answering the questions I put to you:

1) Is it possible the brainstorming session was based on simply looking at possibilities and actually resulted in no covert action on their part - as they claim?

2) Does choosing not to covertly influence results in a free country base on chosen principles imply one MUST choose to not do business in a country where without such filtering one can't do business at all?

3) Does the fact google has in the past resisted efforts by governments to control censorship to the point of withdrawing not point to a commitment to those same principles?

4) Is it truly inconsistent with those same principles to, in a country with a government as oppressive in terms of information control as China, decide that providing a more expansive service than the government would provide is a better option that completely withdrawing from that country?


Jim

[Sparko]

I will do what you are avoiding, answer your question.

No, I am not making any sort of absolute statement here. This is the sort of thing you can't make an absolute rule for. There are levels of evil, and levels of good. As an extreme - no, you can't work with Hitler because you think you might get something good done. So it depends on if it's an entity or a person, what the level of evil is, and what level of good you think you might accomplish.

Now how about YOU answering the questions I put to you:

1) Is it possible the brainstorming session was based on simply looking at possibilities and actually resulted in no covert action on their part - as they claim?

2) Does choosing not to covertly influence results in a free country base on chosen principles imply one MUST choose to not do business in a country where without such filtering one can't do business at all?

3) Does the fact google has in the past resisted efforts by governments to control censorship to the point of withdrawing not point to a commitment to those same principles?

4) Is it truly inconsistent with those same principles to, in a country with a government as oppressive in terms of information control as China, decide that providing a more expansive service than the government would provide is a better option that completely withdrawing from that country?


Jim

1. not sure I understand the question. Google left because of hacking, not out of a principal move. They are now working to return to China by building a search engine that complies with China's wishes - to filter out information that might encourage their citizens to seek freedom and become informed.

2. no. but you were the one who made the point that us voting for Trump was immoral because Trump is immoral despite us saying we understand Trump is a horrible person but we voted for him because we think he can and is doing some good, like putting good people into SCOTUS. yet when it comes to google working with an immoral State, you are OK because they might be able to do some good.

3. apparently not since they are willing to work with China to censor information.

4. see my answer in #2

[oxmixmudd]

1. not sure I understand the question. Google left because of hacking, not out of a principal move. They are now working to return to China by building a search engine that complies with China's wishes - to filter out information that might encourage their citizens to seek freedom and become informed.

2. no. but you were the one who made the point that us voting for Trump was immoral because Trump is immoral despite us saying we understand Trump is a horrible person but we voted for him because we think he can and is doing some good, like putting good people into SCOTUS. yet when it comes to google working with an immoral State, you are OK because they might be able to do some good.

3. apparently not since they are willing to work with China to censor information.

4. see my answer in #2

Never said it was immoral to vote for Trump. Not once have I ever said that.

What I have said is that it is immoral to defend him in his immoral acts, which I am seeing Christians do over and over again.

Feel free to go try to find me saying something else. Good luck Sparko. I understand fully the difficulty of the choice in 2016. I've said that over and over. I have only spoken out against christians lining up behind trump and turning a blind eye to his many excursions into behavior and policies contrary to what Christ taught.

Jim

[carpedm9587]

Even if they didn't implement them the very fact that they would be discussing how to rig things in favor of one side over the other is chilling.

It doesn't have to be. Sometimes such hypotheticals are brainstormed as a pre-emptive security issue. It's a management technique called "pre-briefing." Instead of waiting until something happens, and then debriefing what happened, you assume it has happened and pre-brief how it might have occurred. Then you are better prepared to prevent that kind of hack. I know for a fact that Google uses this approach because I heard one of their people present on it at a conference.

Knowing the way Brietbart selectively reports and spins stories, it would not surprise me to find that this is what the meeting was about. I don't know that for a fact, obviously, but their reporting is so badly skewed so often...it's a distinct possibility.

[Sparko]

Never said it was immoral to vote for Trump. Not once have I ever said that.

What I have said is that it is immoral to defend him in his immoral acts, which I am seeing Christians do over and over again.

Feel free to go try to find me saying something else. Good luck Sparko. I understand fully the difficulty of the choice in 2016. I've said that over and over. I have only spoken out against christians lining up behind trump and turning a blind eye to his many excursions into behavior and policies contrary to what Christ taught.

Jim

OK so replace "vote for Trump" with "supporting Trump" and the point is the same. Try responding again to the actual points and not a distraction.

[carpedm9587]

Never said it was immoral to vote for Trump. Not once have I ever said that.

What I have said is that it is immoral to defend him in his immoral acts, which I am seeing Christians do over and over again.

Feel free to go try to find me saying something else. Good luck Sparko. I understand fully the difficulty of the choice in 2016. I've said that over and over. I have only spoken out against christians lining up behind trump and turning a blind eye to his many excursions into behavior and policies contrary to what Christ taught.

Jim

I find myself in complete agreement. I understand the decision point that led a lot of Christians to select Trump over Clinton. I don't agree - but I understand. I do not think it was "supporting Trump" to vote for him. I don't buy the "I was voting against Clinton" argument - I think it was still a vote for Trump - but if someone saw Trump as the lesser of two evils when compared with Clinton, that is a valid position if it has been supported by reasonable argumentation.

Since then, Trump has been caught lying on multiple occasions, has bullied and called names like a middle school miscreant, has used the power of his office to attack others, has demonstrated a philosophy of vengeance and "getting even," and the list goes on. Even the leaders of the Boy Scouts of America felt a need to apologize for the speech he gave to their scouts and the jamboree. There is little about Trump that is in "the spirit of Jesus of Nazareth," yet he continues (at best) to have his worst words and actions ignored or (at worst) to have them defended by those who would call themselves Christian.

I don't think most Christians understand the degree of damage they have done to their credibility as "moral authorities." For those of us sitting outside the Christian sphere, especially the evangelical sphere, claims to being the font of moral rectitude simply don't have a lot of substance anymore - not since the solid support evangelicals have had for this pretty horrendous man.

[oxmixmudd]

OK so replace "vote for Trump" with "supporting Trump" and the point is the same. Try responding again to the actual points and not a distraction.

That wasn't a distraction. To accuse me of calling immoral the people that voted for Trump is to misunderstand every post I have made in Civics on the topic of Trump to date. That had to be the focus of that response to your post without anything else to detract from it lest the point be 'overlooked'.


1) They left china because of hacking and the issue of censorship. Hard to determine which was the dominant motive, but they are businessmen so $$ will always supersede morals. Which, of course, is why they are trying to work with China again. In the instance of trying to fight US internal moral battles, my guess is it was also $$ that was the primary factor, in that they understood they couldn't do anything about it w/o potentially violating the perception they were unbiased, which would cost them big $$. Nevertheless, I don't think the brainstorming session necessarily implies they actually did anything. And I think it is possible they have certain standards they try to maintain, assuming it doesn't hurt the bottom line too too much.

2) hopelessly contaminated by your false assumptions so I don't really have a good way to reply to it without writing a thesis.

3) There is always the possibility that there is more to be gained by working with China than not. Your goal here is to show that google messed with search results concerning Trump to favor negative opinions (or perhaps more broadly, to favor 'liberal' results over 'conservative' results) . But there really isn't a moral equivalence between self initiated action and government required or imposed action. Sometimes moral commitments only go so far. They are sufficient to produce good behavior in some cases but not all cases. Consider, a man's commitment to faithfulness to his wife may be more than sufficient to keep him from actively pursuing a relationship with other women, but not sufficient for him to stand against the aggressive advances of a incredibly beautiful women madly in love him.

4) see my answer #2


Jim

[One Bad Pig]

I don't think most Christians understand the degree of damage they have done to their credibility as "moral authorities." For those of us sitting outside the Christian sphere, especially the evangelical sphere, claims to being the font of moral rectitude simply don't have a lot of substance anymore - not since the solid support evangelicals have had for this pretty horrendous man.

I don't think you understand how little credibility you have as an arbiter of "moral authority." On the other hand, I don't think that the claims ever had much substance to begin with.

[Zymologist]

This might be a stupid question, but how many evangelicals hold themselves up as some kind of "font of moral rectitude," anyway? That kind of claim (e.g., "Look at me, I'm a moral authority") is the kind of thing that will generally have me rolling my eyes and saying, "Yep, sure...whatever you say buddy."

[carpedm9587]

I don't think you understand how little credibility you have as an arbiter of "moral authority."

Here - I would tend to agree with you. I'm not impressed that anyone here thinks I am a "moral person."

On the other hand, I don't think that the claims ever had much substance to begin with.

Not sure what "the claims" refers to.

[oxmixmudd]

This might be a stupid question, but how many evangelicals hold themselves up as some kind of "font of moral rectitude," anyway? That kind of claim (e.g., "Look at me, I'm a moral authority") is the kind of thing that will generally have me rolling my eyes and saying, "Yep, sure...whatever you say buddy."

Maybe think of it another way. Often we Christians will say we are against X because it is wrong. Consider the fights over gay marriage, abortion and the like. So we are saying we have a right to fight something on moral grounds. Yet here we are, over and over, cheering on immorality that is obvious to all - abortion supporters and abortion critics, gay marriage supporters and gay marriage critics. By hitching ourselves to such obvious and universally immoral behavior, behavior over which there is no debate, we lose all credibility as having a meaningful voice in the moral issues that are actually under debate today.

Jim

[Zymologist]

Maybe think of it another way. Often Christians will say they are against X because it is wrong. Consider the fights over gay marriage, abortion and the like. So they are saying they have a right to fight something on moral grounds. Yet here they are, over and over, cheering on immorality that is obvious to all - abortion supporters and abortion critics, gay marriage supporters and gay marriage critics. By hitching themselves to such obvious and universally immoral behavior, behavior over which there is no debate, they lose all credibility as having a meaningful voice in the moral issues that are actually under debate today.

Jim

So more of an implicit claim to moral authority, you're saying?